Wartime limits

Consider for a moment an incident at graduation ceremonies at California State University in Sacramento. The speaker was Janis Besler Heaphy, publisher of the local newspaper, the Sacramento Bee. Instead of delivering a typical inspirational address about entering into adult society, she warned against sacrificing civil liberties while fighting international terrorism. Many in the audience soon began booing, clapping and stamping their feet, drowning out her words. Five minutes into her nine-minute speech, she gave up and sat down, heckled off the stage.

A study of her text shows that she expressed full support for President Bush’s response to the terrorist attacks. She agreed with “the validity and need for both retaliation and security” but asked “to what degree are we willing to compromise our civil liberties in the name of security?” She questioned specifically racial profiling, detention and arrest without due process, the ordering of secret military tribunals for suspects and White House pressure on the press.

Some objected simply that her lecture had interfered with the excitement and enjoyment of finally getting their diplomas. But many resented hearing anything that seemed to throw cold water on unquestioning patriotic fervor in time of war.

The faculty president of the college was quoted afterward by The New York Times as saying that the same reaction could have been expected at any university in America. “People in this country are hurt, angry and vengeful. There’s a lot of emotion out there.”

He was right. Americans are feeling fear and anger. These emotions flared up after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and, now, after the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington. The same emotions seem to be essentials in the successful fighting of any war. In World War I, Americans were taught to hate the Germans to the point that people changed their German-sounding surnames and frankfurters were renamed “liberty sausage.” In World War II, hardly anyone protested when masses of Japanese-Americans were rounded up and sent to detention camps. Part of the reason the American war in Vietnam was such a failure was that not enough fear, anger and hatred could be instilled in the American people. They saw Vietnam as a far-off place where American had no interests. Ho Chi Minh, with his wispy beard, hardly looked like a serious threat.

In the present conflict, fear, anger and hatred not only came naturally but are essentials to a war psychology. People hate Osama bin Laden and his gang of terrorists. Unfortunately, some are tempted to hate all Muslims and resent any moves to conduct fair trials for John Walker, the Californian who joined the Taliban as a fighter, and Richard Reid, the mystery man who apparently tried to blow up a jetliner with explosives hidden in his shoes. And students may stamp their feet and heckle anyone who says restrictions on civil liberties may be carried too far.

The lesson here should be to curb the emotions a bit, respect the rights of ordinary Muslims who may have no connection with terrorism, be willing to see suspects get a fair trial and debate calmly and rationally the real question of how far our liberties should be restricted in a time of real national peril.